Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[FredHoyle]

Letting him believe what he wants. Even when people are rude, just remain nice. Don't lower yourself to petty emotions over what a person on this forum thinks. True, many people share those beliefs you don't agree with, but it is better to let them decline naturally than to try to force a change. A belief doesn't last for thousands of years and just end within a couple hundred.

It's not the belief that has lasted it's the fear, the fear is passed down from generation to generation, the children see the fear in their parents and then they are afraid.

Deliberate ignorance is never nice to deal with and by rights I should just stay away from this site and let them contaminate each other, the way it's going lately I don't think it will be long before I do just that.

Ignorance is bliss and they are all blissfully happy in their ignorance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Deliberate ignorance is never nice to deal with and by rights I should just stay away from this site and let them contaminate each other, the way it's going lately I don't think it will be long before I do just that.

Ignorance is bliss and they are all blissfully happy in their ignorance.

Them good for them. It was never your duty to try to change what they think anyway, only to think for yourself.

 

[lifepsyop]

Also, you still have not explained the correlation between the isotopes in the rocks above and below the fossils and the fossil species.

There is no correlation. Any geologist will tell you that the process is plagued by "contamination" factors that must be carefully avoided. Just look at the Carboniferous layer.

If a rock gives a bad date than it is assumed to be the result of "contamination". Old-Earth dating is never, never, NEVER questioned for 2 seconds by these people. It's not being tested for. It is a religiously presupposed "fact".

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no correlation. Any geologist will tell you that the process is plagued by "contamination" factors that must be carefully avoided. Just look at the Carboniferous layer.

Geologists don't say that.

Explain the correlation.

If a rock gives a bad date than it is assumed to be the result of "contamination". Old-Earth dating is never, never, NEVER questioned for 2 seconds by these people. It's not being tested for. It is a religiously presupposed "fact".

That is also false. They demonstrate that the rock is contaminated independent of the date. Xenocrysts can be detected before any radiometric dating is done. Also, isochron techniques can also detect contamination independent of any dates.

You just don't like the data, so you have found excuses to ignore it.

Added in edit:

I would suggest you take a look at this essay:

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

 

[lifepsyop]

Grass is a thing that grows on the ground. It is found above the majority of pterosaur fossils.

Grass also floats. I would suspect that if the soil it was attached to was pulverized, the grass would be mechanically sorted and float on the surface.

Even so there is evidence of grass being widespread in the mesozoic.

Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of Grasses and Grazers
Prasad 2005

 

[lifepsyop]

Geologists don't say that.

Explain the correlation.

lol, okay geologists never complain about contamination when they get a bad date? Never happens, huh? Quite the interesting NCSE bubble you live in.

 

[Loudmouth]

lol, okay geologists never complain about contamination when they get a bad date? Never happens, huh? Quite the interesting NCSE bubble you live in.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

 

[46AND2]

lol, okay geologists never complain about contamination when they get a bad date? Never happens, huh? Quite the interesting NCSE bubble you live in.

You do realize that the "bad" dates are few and far between, right? For every "bad" date you can point to, there are hundreds that corroborate each other.

And they don't just "claim contamination" and discard it...they search for the source of the contamination. The "claim" must be justified in the paper.

 

[Loudmouth]

Grass also floats.

All of it? None of it is found with the Devonian tetrapods? None of is found with 200 million year old pterosaurs?

I would suspect that if the soil it was attached to was pulverized, the grass would be mechanically sorted and float on the surface.

You would suspect? Sounds entirely made up to me.

Even so there is evidence of grass being widespread in the mesozoic.

Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of Grasses and Grazers
Prasad 2005

They were found in the Late Cretaceous. Do you understand how many animals are found in earlier sediments? The grasses just outran all of them? Really?

 

[Seipai]

You do realize that the "bad" dates are few and far between, right? For every "bad" date you can point to, there are hundreds that corroborate each other.

And they don't just "claim contamination" and discard it...they search for the source of the contamination. The "claim" must be justified in the paper.

And when bad dates are found, and explained, I have seen creationists try to take advantage of them.

Take carbon dating as an example. Between currents that can take hundreds of years to complete a circuit and recycled calcium carbonate from coral reefs and other sources the carbon in the ocean tends to be rather old. Therefore you cannot use C14 to date life from the ocean. A fact that has been known for a long time. Yet creationists like Hovind try to use the honesty of scientists against them as a weapon. Who hasn't heard Hovind whining about sea life with anomalously high ages?

 

[46AND2]

And when bad dates are found, and explained, I have seen creationists try to take advantage of them.

Take carbon dating as an example. Between currents that can take hundreds of years to complete a circuit and recycled calcium carbonate from coral reefs and other sources the carbon in the ocean tends to be rather old. Therefore you cannot use C14 to date life from the ocean. A fact that has been known for a long time. Yet creationists like Hovind try to use the honesty of scientists against them as a weapon. Who hasn't heard Hovind whining about sea life with anomalously high ages?

Yup...and most of the "bad" dates are from decades ago when we were still trying to find out limitations of the tool. Geologists are much better at selecting and preserving good samples now.

One thing that I found that shows MANY convergent dates is that the labs do periodic tests across many labs with samples of known ages, in order to find out, in part, if they have contamination issues in their lab.

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2003/AntiquityBoaretto/2003AntiquityBoaretto.pdf

 

[CabVet]

Yup...and most of the "bad" dates are from decades ago when we were still trying to find out limitations of the tool. Geologists are much better at selecting and preserving good samples now.

One thing that I found that shows MANY convergent dates is that the labs do periodic tests across many labs with samples of known ages, in order to find out, in part, if they have contamination issues in their lab.

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2003/AntiquityBoaretto/2003AntiquityBoaretto.pdf

Not to mention that if there is any carbon dating estimate that supports anything that is in the Bible, then all of a sudden carbon dating is infallible. But if it goes agains anything in the Bible, then it is the worst method our there.

 

[CabVet]

Grass also floats. I would suspect that if the soil it was attached to was pulverized, the grass would be mechanically sorted and float on the surface.

Thanks for providing support for a global flood not leaving grass fossils, but why are there fossil grasses then?

Even so there is evidence of grass being widespread in the mesozoic.

Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of Grasses and Grazers
Prasad 2005

The mesozoic is not the Devonian, it is not the Cambrian either. Grasses and fruit trees were the first organisms created in Genesis, yet they only appear in the fossil record after all of the animal groups are in place.

 

[stevevw]

I also notice though evolutionist that say we who believe in God and creation make unsubstantiated claims. Yet I see evolutionists doing just this many times. I dont think they can see the forest though the trees. They can get so fixed on an idea that they begin to believe it just as they claim a religious person believes what they believe.

They make statements like the Darwinian theory of evolution is a fact. They will say that a certain fossil is proof with as much vigor as they accuse a person who believes in creation. In many ways what they are showing is the same as any belief that religion has. Many aspects of the theory have not been proved but they carry on like it is 100% proven.

The other thing ive noticed is that on many, many occasions they get upset to the point of ridicule. I am constantly seeing this and they begin to call Christians names like ignorant and deluded or I feel sorry for you or wake up you are living in a dream world. You will learn one day or you need to grow up. All these are another way of saying you are stupid.

If this is just a topic like any and really at the end of the day you can have your banter and leave it at that then it shouldn't get to that point. If some believe as they do then thats fair enough. Respect the fact that some will have a different point of view as we are all different.

 

[CabVet]

I also notice though evolutionist that say we who believe in God and creation make unsubstantiated claims.

That's because you do. I will give you two examples: the earth being created before the sun, and all of creation taking one week to complete. These are two unsubstantiated claims.

Yet I see evolutionists doing just this many times.

I would like you to give me one example. I will be satisfied with just a single example of an unsubstantiated claim made by an evolutionary biologist. Just one. You claim that you've seen it done "many times", so one example is all I ask.

Many aspects of the theory have not been proved but they carry on like it is 100% proven.

Nothing in science is 100% proven. This is simply not true. Not one scientist makes this claim.

 

[Seipai]

I also notice though evolutionist that say we who believe in God and creation make unsubstantiated claims. Yet I see evolutionists doing just this many times. I dont think they can see the forest though the trees. They can get so fixed on an idea that they begin to believe it just as they claim a religious person believes what they believe.

They make statements like the Darwinian theory of evolution is a fact or that. They will say that a certain fossil is proof with as much vigor as they accuse a person who believes in creation. In many ways what they are showing is the same as any belief that religion has. Many aspects of the theory have not been proved but they carry on like it is 100% proven.

The other thing ive noticed is that on many, many occasions they get upset to the point of ridicule. I am constantly seeing this and they begin to call Christians names like ignorant and deluded or I feel sorry for you or wake up you are living in a dream world. You will learn one day or you need to grow up. All these are another way of saying you are stupid.

If this is just a topic like any and really at the end of the day you can have your banter and leave it at that then it shouldn't get to that point. If some believe as they do then thats fair enough. Respect the fact that some will have a different point of view as we are all different.

Some people don't understand how theories work, and that applies to both sides. That includes you. No theory is ever "proven". By mistakenly assuming that science tries to prove theories you show that you do not understand how science works either.

Theories are always falsifiable and are never proven true. The process is observation, formation of a hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis, exposure to the scientific community as a whole and further testing of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis continually passes tests given to it it is considered a to be a theory and is treated as if it were provisionally true.


That means since it works so well it is treated as if it were true until or unless someone finds a fault in it, if ever.

Evolution is one of the most widely and successfully tested theories in the history of science. The theory has never failed a major test. Are there unanswered questions? Of course. That does not mean that the theory is not "proven". It only means more research can and will be done.

Scientists are very sure that evolution is the correct answer, or extremely close to being the correct answer since it would probably have failed some major tests by now if that were not the case.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Right because natural enemies forced into close proximity with each other, probably needing to climb over each other just to get a breath of air aren't going to touch each other. They will be like little plastic toys and just sit there bobbing around.

Ha! I see. So the animals gnawed each other to the bone instead of trying to swim. Sure. Again you demonstrate that you lack actual familiarity with the fossil record beyond what you read while trying to debunk evolution. Let's take an Edmontosaurus bonebed as an example. Edmontosaurus were hadrosaurs, i.e. herbivorous. Their teeth look like this:

Note the flat occlusal surface. Now look at a tyrannosaur tooth.

Note the point. Now look at the bite marks:

Note the parallel toothmarks that look exactly like what you would expect from a jawfull of pointy teeth. Then there's the fact that we find shed tyrannosaur (as well as other theropod) teeth amongst the Edmontosaurus bones but no actual bones of the tyrannosaurs. The obvious conclusion is that the carcasses were fed upon and exposed extensively before burial and preservation.

You are going with the position that the flat toothed hadrosaurs were biting each other and creating those marks? You must be awfully desperate to hold on to the illusion that bones must be buried rapidly to be preserved in the fossil record. Too bad about that. The evidence says something different. It conclusively disproves your assertion in fact. Which means you have no support for saying that only the Flood could have buried them and in fact shows that they were exposed for a quite a while, which really doesn't fit with your model at all.

Which is not exactly on topic, I don't think, besides demonstrating that something you took as evidence of the Flood not only fails to support that model but actually refutes it. How are you coming on listing some of those mysterious angiosperm properties that let them evade the Flood for so much longer than other plants? Remember the only observations we have show that angiosperms occupy every niche from mountains to the water, so it would be completely unsubstantiated to claim that they used to only live at high elevations. And this would not in any case explain how birds and pterosaurs didn't manage to outpace the angiosperms and ended up getting preserved first. Just to pick one example. Was that all you had?

 

[46AND2]

I also notice though evolutionist that say we who believe in God and creation make unsubstantiated claims. Yet I see evolutionists doing just this many times. I dont think they can see the forest though the trees. They can get so fixed on an idea that they begin to believe it just as they claim a religious person believes what they believe.

They make statements like the Darwinian theory of evolution is a fact. They will say that a certain fossil is proof with as much vigor as they accuse a person who believes in creation. In many ways what they are showing is the same as any belief that religion has. Many aspects of the theory have not been proved but they carry on like it is 100% proven.

The other thing ive noticed is that on many, many occasions they get upset to the point of ridicule. I am constantly seeing this and they begin to call Christians names like ignorant and deluded or I feel sorry for you or wake up you are living in a dream world. You will learn one day or you need to grow up. All these are another way of saying you are stupid.

If this is just a topic like any and really at the end of the day you can have your banter and leave it at that then it shouldn't get to that point. If some believe as they do then thats fair enough. Respect the fact that some will have a different point of view as we are all different.

I never understood why people bothered to point this out. It's a two-sided coin. There are members of BOTH sides who act this way. I've seen people from both sides complain about this same thing.

If people bug you in that way, just choose not to deal with those individuals. I've remained, mostly, out of a conversation with LoricaLady for that reason. He's no longer here, but I also refuse to converse with a guy named Ikester. I've seen him all over the net. When I first came across him, I tried to engage him, and he ended up banning me from his youtube page, lol. Found out later that this was pretty typical behavior from him.

Or, ask them to be less abrasive. Many of the people who say these things are reasonable enough to recognize when they have let their emotions boil over a bit. I've even asked AV to call me out on it, if he notices it from me. You're welcome to do the same.

I'm personally okay with the occasional insult, though. I still discuss things with Juve, even though he occasionally resorts to ad homs. At least he tries to respond to whatever it is that you ask of him, even if it's in his own special way. ;-)

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It's almost as if you are just waving your hands and throwing out random arguments from incredulity.


Did you notice Sloths and Koalas are arboreal? They navigate these things called trees. Trees are these tall things that stick way up out of the ground.

Smaller rodents have much more of a chance to climb onto floating mats of vegetation.

Dromiceiomimus is found in the late Cretaceous after many mammalian fossils appear.



Trees and plants float. It's not all that surprising to not see some of them appearing till higher layers. Perhaps most angiosperms were growing at higher elevations pre-flood.

Also, Angiosperms have been found in Triassic rock layers. This is fairly low in the record as far as terrestrial ecosystems go. I don't see you making any compelling argument here.

You seem to have settled upon the strategy of accusing us of handwaving rather than going to the effort an actual counterargument. And there is a difference between arguing from incredulity and arguing from actual knowledge based on what we know of the organisms in question. It is simply not logical to maintain that sloths were more able to avoid the Flood than birds. So sloths climb trees, therefore they were able to escape the Flood longer than birds? Nice logic there.
Sure Dromiceiomimus shows up after some mammal groups. Not after skunks though. Skunks are not exactly known for their blazing speed. And angiosperms aren't made of some special material that is more buoyant than other plants. Of course they float. The problem isn't that we find them in higher layers, it's that we never find them in layers below a certain point. The Triassic is comparatively not that far down in the rock record. It's certainly not anywhere near where land plants start showing up in the fossil record. Don't you get it? There is an effectively limitless list of things that do not conform to the pattern you so desperately want to believe exists.

 

[Queller]

I did not say creationism IS scientific.

Everything of creationism is scientific, except the falsification part,

The above are your quotes.

I think your misunderstanding is not aware of the way I use the reserved word "IS". I am used to use it this way, and I guess you are not.

Here the "IS" means equivalent, equal to. It is a logic use of the word.

You really need to share you personal dictionary with the rest of us because once again you are using definitions of words that no one else uses.

With this explanation, I guess I don't see any problem of what I said. Falsification is a scientific idea and is not included in Creationism.

Then there is nothing scientific in creationism.